The Zeitgeist

The Race for President: I’m With No One.

Stuck in the Middle with You, Wondering What It is I Should Do.

This column appeared originally on The Huffington Post on August 1, 2016 and in several newsppaers around the country that week.

After having watched both the Republican and Democratic National Conventions I’m solidly convinced that the political world has been sent to a paradoxical dimension not tethered to any of the familiar signposts of the past 80-plus years.

Just as the Internet and mobile devices have disrupted traditional media, traditional shopping and even traditional dating and social mores, the brave new world created by technology seems to be having a tsunami effect on every aspect of American life up to and including presidential politics.

Millions are reached with withering tweets in nanoseconds that obviate the impact of hour-long speeches and lengthy policy analyses. Tens of millions of dollars are raised from millions of donors almost in real time with the touch of fingers on a mobile screen that obviates the need for big money from big donors. And we are now in the midst of a presidential campaign that would have been unimaginable even four years ago.

Hillary Clinton gave the speech of her life on Thursday night, July 28^th to end the Democratic Convention. Up until that speech I harbored a solid and visceral hatred for this woman. Now, thanks to her oratory I now only have a solid ambivalence – which is progress because there are millions of Americans out there just like me.

The gradual transformation from hate to ambivalence is possible partly because the Republican standard-bearer is so utterly repugnant to me in just about every which way. Donald Trump does not represent my morals or mores. His predilection for Don Rickles-esque insult and endless pejorative politics is repugnant to my sense of civility and decency. (And, please, I don’t mean to insult Mr. Rickles who does put-downs in jest, not with intent as does Mr. Trump). He attacks people’s wives. His business practices don’t jibe with caring for the working man. His impulsive temperament and thin skin and his complete inability to accept criticism scare me witless. He’s the first Republican since 1940 to run on an isolationist platform. He wants to eviscerate global free trade which could cause a worldwide recession and who knows how much military tension, especially with China.

He wants to undermine NATO and he’s an enabler of Vladimir Putin’s adventurism and he goes on “ABC This Week” with George Stephanopoulos on Sunday, July 31^st and lies about his Putin relationship, contradicting a half dozen video clips from the past three years of him saying the opposite. He wants to raise taxes. He has no plan to cut the deficit. He actually takes the National Enquirer seriously. Hardly anyone of any consequence in the GOP backs him. Still.

Hillary Clinton also makes me queasy. I don’t like her poor judgment with her emails while Secretary of State. I don’t like that she lied for a full year about the emails. I really don’t like that she went on “Fox News Sunday” with Chris Wallace on July 31^st and lied about it again, to the point that The Washington Post gave her performance “Four Pinocchios.” I don’t like what she and Debbie Wasserman-Shultz did to Berne Sanders and that Hillary hired Wasserman-Shultz immediately on her resignation as Chair of the DNC.

I don’t like that she and her husband knowingly raised tens of millions for their foundation from foreign interests while she was Secretary of State and the lush speaking fees they both got personally over the past eight years. I can only imagine how much fruit will be shaken from the trees by Bill if Hillary is elected President. I don’t like that the worldwide radical Islamist terror epidemic is given low priority by the Democrats; that she was part and parcel of the massive pressure on Israel which went so far as to interfere in Israel’s elections on behalf of Benjamin Netanyahu’s opponents. I don’t feel the Iran nuclear deal will keep the world safe because the Iranians have been flouting their violations of the agreement in the world’s face day in and day out. She also fails to take the federal deficit seriously. It’s blossomed to $19 trillion and growing.

She absolutely came across as more human and less power-hungry in her acceptance speech and made some good points but like many Americans I don’t completely trust her and the sound of her voice is like nails on a chalkboard, so the likeability factor is sorely lacking. That she is the pro-NATO anti-Putin candidate as a Democrat is the world put upside down.

I’d probably have voted for Bernie Sanders had he won the Democratic nomination even though I disagree with most of his policies, primarily because he’s likeable because of his honesty, integrity and consistency. (For me and millions of Americans character does matter).

So, like many Americans, right now I’m at “none of the above,” meaning I can’t vote for Trump and I’m not ready to vote for Hillary. This will be a wild ride over the next three months leading up until Election Day. It may be that voter turnout in November will be very low owing to so many Americans’ discomfort with either candidate and many will just sit on their hands and stay home. Right now, many of us are in limbo with nowhere to go – so I’m stuck like so many folks I know in the void for the first time since I started voting in 1980.

The Zeitgeist

Joe Lhota (left) and Bill de Blasio mix it up on WABC debate

Lhota Dead on Arrival for Televised Mayoral Debate;

Historic GOP Loss in the Offing.

On Tuesday evening October 15^th Bill de Blasio hammered in the nails on Joe Lhota’s coffin. In a televised debate on WABC Channel 7, de Blasio was animated, forceful and forthright while continually tarring Lhota with the brush of “Republican trickle-down economics,” “Tea Party extremism,” “Giuliani Administration divisiveness” and as a shill for “Bloombergian corporate welfare.” De Blasio continually rebutted anything Lhota had to say even if de Blasio wasn’t supposed to be speaking. Lhota was so painfully polite that de Blasio always got in the last word and the last jab.

Joe Lhota, the Republican candidate for Mayor of New York never once turned to look de Blasio in the eye, allowed all charges, slights and insults to go un-refuted and unchallenged and never went on the offensive calling de Blasio a continuation of the David Dinkins administration since de Blasio’s City Hall experience was working for that former mayor. Lhota never raised the ominous specter of a return to those crime-filled days nor did he ridicule any of de Blasio’s proposals.

Lhota went out of his way to portray himself as the candidate of change while de Blasio successfully boxed him in as the candidate of continuity. Instead of vigorously defending the last 20 years of Republican control of City Hall, Lhota was trying to have his cake and eat it too, distancing himself while gingerly embracing a few GOP policies. A lot of New Yorkers are happy with how things have gone since 1993 but the only way you’d know Lhota was the Republican standard-bearer was hearing it from de Blasio.

Back in 2009, 1,550,000 of the more than eight million residents of New York City came out to vote in that year’s mayoral contest between the incumbent Michael Bloomberg and his Democratic challenger Bill Thompson.  The Board of Elections shows 4,366,746 registered voters in the city limits as of April 1, 2012.    Not a particularly high turnout last time around. Back in 1993 in the supercharged race between the incumbent David Dinkins and his challenger Rudy Giuliani nearly 1.9 million people voted. Voter apathy tends to breed low turnouts as in 2009. Turnout has been declining steadily for decades. From 1932 until 1969 well over 2.2 million people voted each time.

Thanks to the perception that the 2013 race is a fait accompli it is fair to assume that New Yorkers won’t be streaming to the voting booths. By “fait accompli,” I mean all the recent polls showing GOP candidate Joe Lhota getting trounced by the Democratic nominee Bill de Blasio. In the last Quinnipiac poll conducted at the end of September int margin that points to a mauling of historic proportions. If we take the 2009 voter turnout as an estimate for 2013 that would mean more than 1.1 million votes for de Blasio and a mere 325,000 for Lhota. For Lhota that would be fewer votes than there are registered Republicans, a rare feat given how few admitted Republicans there are in Gotham.

You’d have to go back all the way to the Koch years where Ed slaughtered the placeholder GOP candidates to find a more dismal looking picture for the GOP. In 1977 Roy Goodman only garnered 59,000 votes (Mario Cuomo got 588,000 on the Liberal Party line). In 1981 Koch ran as both a Democrat and Republican and in 1985 his Republican challenger only took 102,000 votes. That Joe Lhota seems to be OK with doing little better than Roy Goodman in ’77 rather than winning is a big part of the problem. No fight. No passion. Lhota just wants to be loved and cuddled. His pushing of himself so far away from the embrace and legacy of Rudy Giuliani is reminiscent of Al Gore’s similar strategy vis-à-vis Bill Clinton in 2000. We know how well that worked out for Gore.

The Lhota people are running a “sunny day in the Emerald City” type of ad campaign. There’s nothing to fear, nothing to worry about because like de Blasio, Lhota is pro-Choice. De Blasio is for Gay marriage, so is Joe; lo and behold, like de Blasio, Lhota supports decriminalizing marijuana. Candidate differentiation? Lhota wants to cut spending and not raise taxes but in the Lhota TV spot that got ridiculed by media critics everywhere, this one policy difference comes more than halfway into the commercial. At the end of his spots it’s all about “Democrats agree that Joe is New York.” The problem here is that you can really be a bona fide New Yorker and even be liked for it but yet give the voters no reason to support you. That you’re portraying yourself as a moderate Democrat? There already is a candidate from that party. That you “are New York”? So what, so are eight million other people. Is de Blasio not a New Yorker? Who cares?

Being pro-choice or pro-marijuana are not even issues that might mean something to Democrats and Independents to help sway their votes. The issues that matter are first and foremost public safety, then schools, then jobs. In the safety sphere, two cases in point are that of retaining Ray Kelly as Police Commissioner and Stop and Frisk. Lhota would keep Kelly, de Blasio would dump him but there’s nary a peep from the Lhota people about it. Stop and Frisk? Again on different sides of that issue but you’d never know it. Charter Schools? Lhota wants to keep them, de Blasio is opposed to them as elitist and diverting resources away from the general school population. Jobs? De Blasio wants to stop subsidizing businesses that locate or agree to stay here via tax breaks and subsidies. Lhota is on the other side of this, but, again, Lhota makes no forceful case for its necessity in attracting and retaining jobs. Is there any campaign targeted to public school parents? Nope. In Lhota-land the predominantly Democratic electorate can’t handle the tough issues. It’s more important that “Joe is New York,” whatever that means.

A kid-glove campaign without being in the least bit pugnacious won’t work in a tough town like New York. For the last 20 years New Yorkers elected Republican mayors, but Guiliani and Bloomberg were alpha dogs (although different stylistically). Absent a campaign that portends a return to the 1989-1993 chaos when New York was careening towards becoming Detroit if a “Democrat with a capital D” is put in Gracie Mansion, there is nothing to motivate “Democrats with a lower-case D” to vote GOP. And make no mistake, fear is a powerful motivator. New Yorkers also respect attitude, not passivity and Mr. Lhota’s full court press of passivity was on full display in Tuesday evening’s debate which is why the candidate with more passion, a clearer sense of who he is and a bigger vision will undoubtedly triumph on November 5^th and right now that isn’t Mr. Lhota.

The Zeitgeist with Howard Barbanel

Scampering over the US-Mexico border fence

Gang of Eight Immigration Bill Will Probably Die in the House;

Some Original Thinking on How to Solve the Problem

The four Democrat and four Republican senators who comprise the so-called “Gang of Eight” have been engaged in a laudable effort to craft a bi-partisan solution to the immigration crisis afflicting this country. Their efforts, which rumor has it will encompass in excess of 1,000 pages of proposed legislation will probably be put before their colleagues and the American people very shortly.

The gist of their proposals have been leaked all over the media) with no end of subsequent hand-wringing from both the left and the right. Democrats are looking for provisions that are perceived to be compassionate and politically popular while Republicans on the whole are looking for ways to somehow entice Hispanics while concurrently slaking the desire of Southern red-state residents for a “Great Wall” type of impenetrable border.

One of the key nubs in the Gang of Eight proposal is that the 11 million or so illegals here now in the U.S. will have to pay a fine for their impertinence in coming here illegally, pay-up all their back taxes and get to the back of the line behind all those who came here legally and are legally awaiting a green card. Oh, they have to pass a background check, learn English, take civics classes, show that they’ve been (illegally) working regularly. This will get them probationary legal status and an eventual path towards citizenship.

The aforementioned provisions for probationary status are so draconian that I’m betting only a minority of illegals will voluntarily submit themselves to this kind of inquisition and arm twisting. Proponents of the bill believe that the peace of mind that would come from knowing you won’t be deported will be incentive enough for most illegals to apply.

Most illegals don’t worry much about being deported, otherwise there wouldn’t be 11 million of them – many of them here for quite a long time now – so long that they already have given birth to a whole new generation of young people whose parents are illegals. Illegals are not just of Spanish decent. There are plenty of Europeans (including Irish, Ukrainians, etc.) hiding here in plain sight who overstayed their tourist or student visas. Ditto folks from the Indian subcontinent and even Africa and China. A lot of illegals fly in to our airports, they don’t all scamper over the Rio Grande. And they wouldn’t be here if there weren’t plenty of jobs for them that most Americans don’t want.

Notwithstanding the bi-partisanship being evidenced in the Senate, any bill will have to get through the GOP-dominated House of Representatives. That’s a tough row to hoe. Senate Republicans have incentive to work with Democrats because they’re in the minority. It’s a different world in the other chamber on Capitol Hill.

My prediction is that the Gang of Eight bill will be dead on arrival or will suffer a slow death if it even manages to get out of the Senate.

What’s needed is some new thinking out of the box. We need a combination of incentives and penalties that will entice the majority of illegals to register while the process benefits society.

The idea of getting illegals to declare years worth of prior income taxes, file those back taxes  (when most were paid off the books) and then pay those taxes is just ludicrous. That they will voluntarily submit to go to the back of the line and wait years for permanent resident status is naïve.

The way to go here is the imposition of a poll tax, or flat franchise fee on all illegals if they wish to remain in the country. Illegals here drain our resources by using our schools, hospitals and other services, America needs to be reimbursed. Republicans want to see a simple solution that’s kind of a punishment and which won’t costs billions of dollars to implement. Democrats want a quick path to residency. Here it is:

Let’s charge all illegals a one-time $50,000 fee to stay in the country and work here. This will raise $400 Billion if eight million of the 11 million illegals take the offer. This fee should be split between the federal government and our schools and hospitals, particularly in areas with heavy immigrant populations. This would be a one-time offer with a cut-off date. Payment of the fee and passing of a background check would get the person not a green card, but a card of a different color entitling them to be guest workers here, assigning them a tax ID number and compelling them to pay all income taxes going forward. They would not be on a path to citizenship (in fact they would be permanently ineligible as a penalty for having come here illegally) but they’d not be deported and can remain here for the rest of their lives. However, if they fail to pay their taxes for two years in a row, they could have their status revoked and be deported. That’s the enforcement anvil. Those not taking the offer will be pressured to leave the country or be deported. Pay to stay and play, or adios.

In this way illegal behavior is not rewarded with citizenship at any point but compassion is served by allowing them to remain as our guests indefinitely and by permitting their children (born here or not) to apply for citizenship. No new cumbersome bureaucracy should be established, rather existing INS and Homeland security workers should implement it in tandem with the IRS.

This should please Democrats on the compassion issue in that no one gets deported and Republicans on the law and order front along with keeping millions of probable Democratic voters off the rolls. It also should please Democrats in the revenue enhancement area while pleasing Republicans by not imposing additional revenue burdens on American citizens. It would also be a boon to the financial services industry (also pleasing the GOP) as financiers could float loans to illegals to pay their $50,000 fine just as they finance college educations. Oh, and also for the Democrats? Eight million or more new taxpayers. Again, revenue enhancement but not on the backs of those here legally and playing by the rules. This kind of proposal just might get some traction in the GOP-lead House.

Vote in the UN in 1947 to partition British-Mandaed Palestine into Jewish and Arab states

Bad Cop, Worse Cop:

The Palestinian Effort to Undermine Israel,

Not Achieve Independence.

Note: This article was written originally in December 2012 but was never published before now, but in light of John Kerry's shuttle diplomacy, it has great relevance today.

On November 29^th 1947 the United Nations voted to terminate the then defunct League of Nations mandate for Palestine which was awarded to the British as a consequence of their conquest of the area from the defeated Ottoman Empire during World War I. The Ottomans were on the wrong side of that conflict, allied with Germany.

What had been the Ottoman Near East was carved into British or French mandates and from there eventually into independent states such as Iraq, Syria, Jordan, etc. None of these nations existed as currently constituted prior to European colonial offices drawing random maps in Paris and London.

In fact, the Palestine mandate encompassed the present territory of Israel, the Palestinian Authority and the Kingdom of Jordan. In the early 1920s, to assuage Arab nationalist aspirations, Jordan (the “East Bank”) was severed from Palestine and to further appease Arab demands, much of the West Bank, Gaza and some of the Galilee and Negev desert were apportioned by the UN to become another Palestinian Arab state in 1948. That this state failed to come into being was not the fault of Israel.

The Jews of Palestine readily accepted UN Resolution 181 and declared their independence on May 14, 1948. The Palestinian Arab leaders rejected partition, demanding all of Palestine and along with the Arab League, embarked on a war to annihilate the Palestinian Jews and their nascent state. About a half dozen Arab nations attacked Israel but failed to realize their genocidal goal and Israel came into being. The Arabs did retain control of the West Bank and Gaza in 1948 but Jordan annexed the West Bank and the Egyptians did the same to Gaza, snuffing out any notion of an independent Palestinian state. From 1948 thru 1967 the Arab world did nothing to establish an independent Palestinian Arab state in those territories.

The idea behind Resolution 181 was to create a situation in Palestine much akin to that on the Caribbean island of Hispaniola where the two very different nations of Haiti and the Dominican Republic share the same space despite their different languages, culture and outlooks. Also in 1947 what was British India was partitioned into Hindu and Muslim states (the current India, Pakistan and Bangladesh). Despite occasional frictions, the two societies manage to coexist side by side.

The difference in Palestine in 1948 and even right through today is that the Arab half of the equation is not interested in coexistence with their Jewish neighbors. No Jews are permitted to reside in any of the Palestinian Arab territories and even Christians are persecuted to such an extent that the Christian population of Bethlehem has been eviscerated.

The Palestinians in their Quixotic quest to conquer all of Palestine employ a “bad cop/worse cop” strategy that goes something like this: In Gaza you have a separate “government” headed by the Iranian sponsored, armed and funded Hamas movement which is sworn to the “armed struggle” and manifests this by lobbing thousands of lethal missiles at Israeli civilians with the intent to kill and terrorize as many of them as possible while at the same time attempting to demoralize its population.

In the West Bank you have the more “moderate” unelected, equally undemocratic Palestinian Authority. They are considered “moderate” because while not forswearing armed struggle, they prefer a diplomatic offensive to ostracize Israel on the world stage along with a concurrent delegitimization campaign designed to isolate Israel and turn her into a pre-Mandela South African regime in the eyes of the international community, thereby whittling away at her economy, support and internal morale.

Proof of this was the speech by PA President Mahmoud Abbas at the UN on November 29^th, 2012 and the concurrent successfully passed resolution to upgrade the status of the Palestinian delegation at that body. Abbas’ speech came only about a week after a ceasefire in Hamas’ unprovoked war on Israeli civilians. Shamelessly, Abbas casts the Gaza militants as the victims, terms them as “martyrs” and asserts this all happened because of “racist colonial Israeli occupation,” when in fact there are no Israelis whatsoever in Gaza and the Palestinians run their own affairs in the West Bank. Abbas gave a screed that twisted the facts of 1948 to such an extent that even someone proficient in yoga couldn’t contort themselves to that level.

At no point, at no time and at no place has Abbas or any other Palestinian leader spoken clearly and forcefully about the need and desire for peaceful coexistence with the State of Israel as a Jewish state. In no Palestinian media and in no Palestinian school is the message of tolerance and coexistence mentioned. No dissent is allowed in the mantra of a Palestinian state instead of Israel as opposed to alongside of it.

Israelis and Jews everywhere would be ecstatic to see an end to this conflict. Israelis just want to be left alone in peace, like Denmark. All that has to happen is for Palestinian leaders and their people to embrace coexistence, cease militarization and attacks on Israeli civilians and establish genuine democracy in their territories.

These are the reasons why President Obama, Secretary of State Clinton and UN Ambassador Rice all condemned and voted against the Palestine resolution of November 29^th. The world does not contribute to peace in the region by encouraging denial of reality, enabling Iranian-sponsored genocidal fantasies and dissuading the Palestinians from face to face negotiations and compromise.